|
Author
|
Topic: Study Claim Psychological Gender Differences Overstated
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 19 September 2005 09:24 AM
Hot damn, chubbybear, where do you find this stuff?  Here's a circular argument extrordinaire:
quote:
David Schmitt, professor of psychology at Bradley University, Illinois, said there were real psychological differences between the sexes but these were often exaggerated. “Overinflated stereotypes are limiting, but there are still deep biological differences,” said Schmitt. “Gender differences in childhood, such as boys playing with boys’ toys, demonstrate that gender differences do genuinely exist.”
Yup, give a boy "boy's toys" and he'll play with them! It's biology!  I mean, c'mon, look at the aisles in any children's toy store and tell me that gender isn't socially conditioned. Sheesh! But seriously, just off the top of my head, some critiques:
1. Was this study done 25 years ago? Didn't we already have this discussion?
2. Is there any reason to believe the study, flawed as it is, included any women and men of colour?
3. So what? It matters less if there are *actual* and *proven* examples of gender difference if sexism and misogyny continue, which they seem to be happily doing. Since we know that inequitable systems continue regardless of "reality"*, how is this helpful? I can see that some would want to use this to show that now there *really* is no reason for sexism, but reasoning alone will not dismantle patriarchy.
*One example: When women were thought to be less intelligent than men, and denied entrance into universities. This didn't ever mean that women were unable to understand and learn, but it did block access.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025
|
posted 19 September 2005 11:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Yup, give a boy "boy's toys" and he'll play with them! It's biology!
Right you are BCG - this is a stupid comment, and fortunately, it's not from the study leader, Dr. Janet Shibley Hyde, it's from a Schmitt someone. I think this is a "balance" comment or something, but yeah, it's dum. quote:
1. Was this study done 25 years ago? Didn't we already have this discussion?
From what I can tell it's a metadata analysis, recompiling existing data. From a statistical point of view, it's kinda neat, but not new information.
quote:
2. Is there any reason to believe the study, flawed as it is, included any women and men of colour?
Don't think so.
quote:
3. So what? It matters less if there are *actual* and *proven* examples of gender difference if sexism and misogyny continue, which they seem to be happily doing. Since we know that inequitable systems continue regardless of "reality"*, how is this helpful? I can see that some would want to use this to show that now there *really* is no reason for sexism, but reasoning alone will not dismantle patriarchy.
This is an important point and worth repeating. Misogyny persists despite the irrationality of it. However, this may be a means to chip away at one the foundations of sexism, the argument that XXchrom and Xychrom people are 'inherently' different.[ 19 September 2005: Message edited by: chubbybear ]
From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 19 September 2005 03:33 PM
(looks like it's just you 'n me on this thread, kid)Yes, it's true that the "men and women aren't so biologically different after all" argument may win some people over. But, IIR, this argument was played by the white women of the second wave back in the late 60s. And as we can see, it didn't go nowhere. Some biological anti-racist types have also tried to use this argument, that in fact we humans have less variation between different cultural groups than we do between us and our close cousins the chimps. But that doesn't work either, as the conditions of sexism and racism persist. But, hey, a gold star to chubbybear for giving our side another arguing point.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fast_twitch_neurons
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10443
|
posted 20 September 2005 08:20 AM
Boys playing with boys' toys isn't necessaryily conditioning... I wanted hot wheels when I was small, and I didn't have many friends, and we didn't have television for many years (so no marketting), I also wanted the lego and such.So social conditioning did not set me into these behaviors. However, it may have reinforced them, as when I finally did make some friends, they tended to have the same hobbies. Off-topic anecdote:
There's this really happy moment in my childhood where someone brought his favourite hot wheel to show and tell; it was this silver lamborghini. I owned the same hot wheel at home, but in my case, it was my second favourite hot wheel, because i had a better one, a red ferrari   Anyhow, none of the contemporary peer-reviewed science I've read can support racism nor sexism. There does seem variation between groups, but variation within groups is at least as high, and even if it wasn't; our human rights codes are based on the rights of individuals.
From: Montreal | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025
|
posted 20 September 2005 10:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Is that sorta like *this* ???
Nope, more like this:
Hello, boys and girls. This is your old pal, Stinky Wizzleteats. This is a song about a whale. No! This is a song about being happy! That's right! It's the Happy Happy Joy Joy song!
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy! I don't think you're happy enough! That's right! I'll teach you to be happy! I'll teach your grandmother to suck eggs! Now, boys and girls, let's try it again! Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy! If'n you aint the grandaddy of all liars! The little critters of nature... They don't know that they're ugly! That's very funny, a fly marrying a bumblebee! I told you I'd shoot! But you didn't believe me! Why didn't you believe me?! Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Joy Joy Happy Happy Happy Happy
Happy Happy Happy Happy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy! [ 22 September 2005: Message edited by: chubbybear ]
From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 22 September 2005 01:54 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bigcitygal:I mean, c'mon, look at the aisles in any children's toy store and tell me that gender isn't socially conditioned. Sheesh!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree. I think all children should have access to some basic level of stimulus and nutrition in developmental years leading to their entry into the workforce. We know that doesn't happen for too many children in the two richest and most politically conservative western nations though. And I think there are still people who confuse overall abilities with respect to gender and ethnicity versus life experiences and life chances. I think the differences are greater between poor kids and kids who know no want. Studies have shown that how advanced a child will become depends on nutrition and appropriate stimulus in developmental years. Mel Hurtig says there are five year old Canadian children showing up at school house doors not knowing their numbers and letters and with empty stomachs, not ready to learn. This doesn't normally happen with children who learn to eat balanced meals and who are read to on a regular basis. Anti-poverty groups want reading and writing materials listed and included in poverty guidelines as basic necessities for poor children. Poverty cuts through gender differences. Our liberal and conservative governments need to begin taking Canada's high levels of child poverty seriously. [ 22 September 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 22 September 2005 06:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
(looks like it's just you 'n me on this thread, kid)Yes, it's true that the "men and women aren't so biologically different after all" argument may win some people over. But, IIR, this argument was played by the white women of the second wave back in the late 60s. And as we can see, it didn't go nowhere. Some biological anti-racist types have also tried to use this argument, that in fact we humans have less variation between different cultural groups than we do between us and our close cousins the chimps. But that doesn't work either, as the conditions of sexism and racism persist. But, hey, a gold star to chubbybear for giving our side another arguing point.
I guess it depends on what you see the purpose of the research to be. If it's to change the world, then it hasn't been very successful (nor has any other research, ever, by that measure). If it's to better understand the world, and give us further tools to change it, then it's doing OK. In other words - Just because the scientific fact that people of varying races differ only in skin pigmentation hasn't eliminated racism doesn't mean it has no value as a fact. Just because the fact that males and females (and all those between) are more similar than many previously thought or believed hasn't eliminated sexism doesn't mean it's not important or valid. It's all broad population data - individuals of any gender or shade can end up anywhere along a given continuum of characteristics, so not much can be inferred about a single person from any population-wide biological tendencies that do exist anyways.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 22 September 2005 06:29 PM
quote:
Alright, but where does that leave transexuals?
Up shit's creek. Feminists have been working for ages to popularize gender neutral toys like blocks, lego-type stuff, puzzles, colouring books, and to some extent those are out there. But the pink/blue divide is there, and as always, you can get a girl a truck but god frikkin forbid if you get a boy a doll, or anything not blue, steel grey or black in colour. [ 22 September 2005: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 22 September 2005 08:26 PM
Most of the toys at Grandma's house come from either the second hand store or the church basement bazaar...lots of stuffies, large collection of cars, a beautiful yellow painted digger machine, some trucks, shovels, etc., three different chocolate boxes of crayons, felts, etc., four water colour sets, a dozen paint brushes, a chalkboard, a collection of coloured chalk, a rocking llama, a spring horse, a trike, two "push toys" for whichever is just learning to walk, a pedal tractor, a two wheeler with training wheels and an absolutey incredible doll house, complete with babies, grandmas and a playground set. Em spends most of her time on trike or bike...Joan prefers crayons , scissors, paper , and, unfortunately, anything anyone else has. Lilli is now one full year old and she adores the doll house. Knew what to do with it from the get go. I'm lucky, it's a four hour drive to the closest pink'n'blue division and, because the girlfriends haven't been taught what is and isn't "girls stuff" they just thrill at the assortment and selection and don't (yet) seem to be too fixated on what is and isn't gender specific.Given the choices usually available I'd think these kids would probably play with both sets of toys, but Em I would expect to be drawn more to the cars, trucks and action stuff. She isn't much for sitting and what's the fun of a doll when you've got a real live baby to cuddle. Went over to get her this morning and the bear had done a number on the garbage cans near where she's living. She looked at the mess and then told me "Dat dam bear again. I'm gonna get my dad to get his gun and shoot dat bear in de eye. Den we take off hims skin and Jorge puts it in stuff and den it goes soft and he makes stuff and no more gobbitch all over my dwibeway." I wondered how many other kids in this town or any other have experienced skinning and then tanning of hides...the words just poured out of her, and her indignation about the mess was almost comical, but not to her, of course. The study I'd find interesting would be to get a mixed group of adults together, show them the study and then see which ones believe it, which don't, which find it relevant and which don't... and what the group's opinion was on learning who funded the study in the first place.
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 22 September 2005 08:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Up shit's creek. Feminists have been working for ages to popularize gender neutral toys like blocks, lego-type stuff, puzzles, colouring books, and to some extent those are out there. But the pink/blue divide is there, and as always, you can get a girl a truck but god frikkin forbid if you get a boy a doll, or anything not blue, steel grey or black in colour. [ 22 September 2005: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
I haven't made myself clear. My question is, dosen't insisting that gender is purely a sociological construct leave trans activists, many of whom have been saying that gender has a biological component, out in the cold? [ 24 September 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643
|
posted 24 September 2005 01:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
I haven't made myself clear. My question is, dosen't insisting that gender is purely a sociological construct leave trans activists, many of whom have been insisting that gender has a biological component, out in the cold?
I recall reading a story in the NYTimes magazine a few years ago about cross gender children. It concerned a boy whose genitalia were burned at an early age and he was medically altered to be a girl, but by his early teens was feeling very uncomfortable and later in life had surgeries to again reverse his gender. The doctor who had supervised these treatments was named "Money" IIRC. I wish I had a link to this story but it certainly seemed to suggest, that at least as far as basic identity and sexuality, there is a considerable genetic or biological input that even powerful surgeries cannot overide, let alone some casual conditioning around toys and games.
From: Goose Country Road, Prince George, BC | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 25 September 2005 09:37 AM
Okay, back to the thread...Sorry for the "toy drift" there, chubbybear. There are a few problems with the article, the most basic is it's an article about another published article. And unless any of us are trained psychological bla-blas we may not be able to understand the original article as it may not be written for layfolks like us. From what I can see, the study by Dr. Hyde (hm, Jekyll and Hyde? Coincidence? I wonder..... ) didn't talk about "biological" differences vs "socially conditioned" differences at all (the "sex" vs "gender" debate), but focussed exclusively on the latter, about gender only, and that those differences are less marked than is commonly believed. And one last methodology point:
[QUOTE]
Hyde’s research, published today in the American Psychologist, collected the results of 46 so-called meta-analyses in which traits had been closely examined for sex differences. These studies themselves combine the results of many research projects. Such an approach has the advantage of bringing together huge amounts of data and can give a much better overall result, especially in areas such as psychology where traits are subtle and hard to measure. [QUOTE] I had to read this a few times before I understood wtf it meant. So now I'm concerned it's just a "number crunching" study. And my issues up-thread are still unanswered which is probably found in the article itself: how many people in each study, and what's the demographic breakdown? As for the transgendered issue, I know virtually nothing about the "biology" argument, as most of the trans activists I know were raised as one gender, and have since transitioned (which takes many different forms). The one intersex person I know was raised as a girl and referred to as a woman by most people before he "came out" as trans. He now identifies as a man.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025
|
posted 25 September 2005 01:47 PM
Good questions BCG. For more detail, you can download a summary from here: Dr. Janet Shibley Hyde Her conclusions are summarized as: quote:
The gender similarities hypothesis stands in stark contrast
to the differences model, which holds that men and women,
and boys and girls, are vastly different psychologically.
The gender similarities hypothesis states, instead, that
males and females are alike on most—but not all—psychological
variables. Extensive evidence from meta-analyses
of research on gender differences supports the gender
similarities hypothesis. A few notable exceptions are some
motor behaviors (e.g., throwing distance) and some aspects
of sexuality, which show large gender differences. Aggression
shows a gender difference that is moderate in
magnitude.
It is time to consider the costs of overinflated claims of
gender differences. Arguably, they cause harm in numerous
realms, including women’s opportunities in the workplace,
couple conflict and communication, and analyses of selfesteem
problems among adolescents. Most important, these
claims are not consistent with the scientific data.
[ 25 September 2005: Message edited by: chubbybear ]
From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
